netdev - Re: [PATCH] tcp: Implement a two-level initial RTO as per draft RFC 2988bis-02.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 19 May 2011 15:27:03 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	tsunanet@...il.com
Cc:	alexander.zimmermann@...sys.rwth-aachen.de, hagen@...u.net,
	kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, pekkas@...core.fi, jmorris@...ei.org,
	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kaber@...sh.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: Implement a two-level initial RTO as per draft
 RFC 2988bis-02.

From: tsuna <tsunanet@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 10:11:50 -0700

> Looking through the kernel, I see that SCTP already has knobs for
> this: sctp_rto_initial, sctp_rto_min, sctp_rto_max.  You can even
> control the constants used to update rttvar and srtt: sctp_rto_alpha,
> sctp_rto_beta

SCTP is 1) not even a sliver of deployment compared to TCP and 2)
doesn't get nearly the same scrutiny on patch review that TCP
changes do.

I basically let the SCTP folks play in their own sandbox, because
frankly SCTP doesn't matter.

The only time I care about an SCTP change is when it has an impact on
the rest of the networking code.

So using SCTP as an example of "see we do this already over here" is a
non-starter.  Don't do it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html